Does Embodiment of Verbs Influence Predicate Metaphor Processing in a Second Language? Evidence From Picture Priming
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 03 November 2021
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759175
Does Embodiment of Verbs Influence
Predicate Metaphor Processing in a
Second Language? Evidence From
Picture Priming
Yin Feng 1,2 and Rong Zhou 1,2*
1
School of Foreign Studies, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China, 2 Center for Language Cognition and
Assessment, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China
Distinct from nominal metaphors, predicate metaphors entail metaphorical abstraction
from concrete verbs, which generally involve more action and stronger motor simulation
than nouns. It remains unclear whether and how the concrete, embodied aspects of
verbs are connected with abstract, disembodied thinking in the brains of L2 learners.
Since English predicate metaphors are unfamiliar to Chinese L2 learners, the study
of embodiment effect on English predicate metaphor processing may provide new
evidence for embodied cognition and categorization models that remain controversial,
Edited by: and offer practical insights into L2 metaphor processing and pedagogy. Hence, we
Pietro Spataro, aim to investigate whether the embodiment of verbs, via the activation of sensorimotor
Mercatorum University, Italy
information, influences two groups of L2 learners during their comprehension of
Reviewed by:
conventional and novel predicate metaphors. The results show a significant effect of
Akira Utsumi,
The University of embodiment: a stronger facilitation for novel predicate metaphors in both higher-level
Electro-Communications, Japan and lower-level groups, and a weaker facilitation for conventional predicate metaphors
Hamad Al-Azary,
Lawrence Technological University, in the lower-level group. The findings demonstrate preliminary evidence for a graded
United States effect of embodiment on predicate metaphors processing, modulated by L2 proficiency
*Correspondence: and metaphor novelty. The study supports a hybrid view of embodied cognition and
Rong Zhou
reveals that sensorimotor aspects of verbs may be the intermediate entity involved in the
zhourong@m.scnu.edu.cn
indirect categorization.
Specialty section:
Keywords: predicate metaphor, embodiment, sensorimotor, L2 proficiency, metaphor novelty, indirect
This article was submitted to
categorization, intermediate entity
Cognition,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
INTRODUCTION
Received: 16 August 2021
Accepted: 11 October 2021 Metaphorical language is not just a poetic expression but also a conceptual device to communicate
Published: 03 November 2021
abstract ideas. The majority of studies in the past decades have focused on nominal metaphors in the
Citation: typical “A is B” structure (e.g., The rumor was a virus), but few have been conducted on predicate
Feng Y and Zhou R (2021) Does
metaphors (e.g., The media bent the truth), despite their frequent occurrence in daily discourses
Embodiment of Verbs Influence
Predicate Metaphor Processing in a
(Cameron, 2008; Steen et al., 2010; Goatly, 2011). Compared with literal sentences that convey
Second Language? Evidence From physical senses (e.g., The repairman bent the pipe), predicate metaphors use verbs figuratively via
Picture Priming. abstraction from concrete action terms. Recently, neural studies found sensorimotor activations
Front. Psychol. 12:759175. across brain regions when English natives read predicate metaphors (Chen et al., 2008; Desai
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.759175 et al., 2013; Obert et al., 2014; Lai et al., 2019); however, it has not been well-understood how
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1 November 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 759175
Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
action-based metaphors go beyond embodiment to create deep relational alignment will remain in the brain (e.g., give up
abstract thoughts in the brains of L2 learners whose language something), but the surface sensorimotor properties of the base
proficiency levels could affect difficulties of comprehension and meaning will be shed (e.g., move the foot forward). In this sense,
embodiment. Furthermore, predicate metaphors comprehension there may be a graded embodiment for metaphor processing
may be a process of indirect categorization with an intermediate relative to metaphor novelty (Desai et al., 2013; Jamrozik et al.,
entity (Utsumi and Sakamoto, 2011; Obert et al., 2018), but its 2016).
processing mechanisms in native language and second language In the past decade, many behavioral studies have addressed
were not fully studied. The aims of the present study are thus the embodied qualities of verbs (Richardson et al., 2001, 2003;
to investigate whether and how the embodiment of verbs, via Wilson and Gibbs, 2007), yet few studies have studied predicate
the activation of sensorimotor properties, influences two groups metaphors in a sentence context or discourses, and it remains
of L2 learners during their comprehension of conventional unclear what type of sensorimotor activation (e.g., visual or
and novel predicate metaphors and to explore the issues of auditory) could influence predicate metaphor comprehension.
intermediate entity in their processing of predicate metaphors. For the structure of word meaning, a major division lies between
A predicate metaphor is a linguistic construction that the conceptual structure and spatial structure, the latter of which
exemplifies the embodied nature of cognition since verbs involves perception and action (Jackendoff, 2002); therefore,
generally entail more action content. Embodied cognition (Lakoff when a picture denoting an action is presented, the sensorimotor
and Johnson, 1980; Glenberg and Kaschak, 2002; Gibbs, 2006a; elements in the spatial structure are likely to be activated
Zwaan and Taylor, 2006; Estes et al., 2008; Glenberg, 2010) before a particular verb meaning is accessed in the conceptual
holds that cognition is grounded in the physical body and structure. The imagery of such an action in the spatial structure
sensorimotor system. Abstract concepts can be understood via can be readily available without retrieving a verb because the
metaphors, which link abstract, less familiar knowledge with processing systems of verbal stimuli (text) and non-verbal stimuli
concrete and familiar experience. For example, reading tactile (image) are functionally and structurally independent (dual
metaphors (e.g., a rough day) and taste metaphors (e.g., a coding theory, Paivio, 2014). In this sense, if one relies on
sweet compliment) can activate sensory regions responsive to the sensorimotor system when reading predicate metaphors,
touch and taste (Lacey et al., 2012; Citron and Goldberg, 2014). the imagery (i.e., embodiment) may facilitate abstraction from
Reading action metaphors related to motion content (e.g., bent concrete meaning and result in faster comprehension.
the truth) can activate regions involved in motor perception Relatively few accounts have been proposed to explain how
(Desai et al., 2011, 2013; Lauro et al., 2013). The stronger predicate metaphors are comprehended. Based on the studies
view of embodied accounts (Gibbs et al., 2004; Gibbs, 2006b) on nominal metaphors, the categorization theory (Glucksberg,
believes that metaphors are comprehended via sensorimotor 2001, 2003, 2008; Torreano et al., 2005) was proposed to account
simulation, just as literal language is comprehended; while the for predicate metaphor processing. In the case of “My job
weaker view (Boroditsky and Ramscar, 2002; Cardillo et al., is a jail,” the words “job” and “jail” are both exemplars of
2012; Jamrozik et al., 2016) argues that only novel metaphors a superordinate category “confining and unpleasant situation.”
draw on sensorimotor information from the source domain, Similarly, in the predicate metaphor “The rumor flew through
but the representation of source domain becomes abstracted the office,” the verb “fly” is a prototypical exemplar of the
as metaphoric use increases. A predicate metaphor is a typical superordinate category “fast travel.” This process is a direct
vehicle to address these mixed views as it allows a verb to be used categorization (Glucksberg, 2001, 2003; Torreano et al., 2005)
literally to describe physical action and metaphorically to convey in which metaphorical meanings are achieved through direct
abstract ideas. abstraction from a superordinate category. However, Utsumi and
Recent neural studies have supported the embodied views of Sakamoto (2011) doubted this explanation because the semantic
predicate metaphor processing. For example, a few secondary structures of verbs are qualitatively different from those of
motor regions were found to be involved when participants nouns. Specifically, verbs involve events and action, and semantic
read familiar predicate metaphors, but the primary sensory and relations entail rich elaborations and thematic roles, such as the
motor regions were more activated when they read unfamiliar hyponymy “To V1 is to V2 in some particular manner” (e.g., to
novel metaphors (Desai et al., 2011, 2013; Cardillo et al., bend is to force a different shape or direction). Nouns, however,
2012), suggesting that novel predicate metaphors relied more on refer to objects, and the semantic relations between nouns are
sensorimotor information corresponding to the verbs. However, mostly class inclusion, such as the superordination “A N1 is a
other studies showed inconsistent motor activations in the brain N2” (e.g., A canary is a bird). Verbs are less likely to rely on
(Watson et al., 2013). It seems that novelty or conventionalization hierarchical relations (Chen et al., 2008); therefore, the meanings
of metaphors plays a role in the mixed results on embodiment. of predicate metaphors may not be created via the superordinate
According to the career of metaphor theory (Bowdle and categorization of the events that are evoked by verbs.
Gentner, 2005), all metaphors start as novel expressions, then An intermediate entity is assumed to be activated by verbs
evolve into conventional expressions, and eventually become before a figurative category of actions is finalized (Utsumi and
literal expressions that lose the figurative meaning. For predicate Sakamoto, 2011). In the example The rumor flew through the
metaphors, the figurative meaning centers on the concrete office, the intermediate entity such as things that fly (e.g., plane
motion aspect of verbs. When predicate metaphors (e.g., kick the or bird) or an imaginary scene of flying, may be evoked before
habit) are conventionalized over time, the salient meanings with an abstract meaning “travel fast” was created. In this case,
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2 November 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 759175Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
understanding a predicate metaphor is a two-stage process with two information sources (i.e., picture and text) while higher-level
indirect categorization. An N400-LPC component observed in an learners can perform well with only one source (i.e., text). In
ERP study (Obert et al., 2018) showed that semantic integration this sense, the embodiment effect of action-related pictures on
occurred during metaphor processing, and this result appeared predicate metaphor comprehension will be different among L2
consistent with the indirect view of categorization. However, learners of different levels.
these studies failed to specify the intermediate entity. Will the In summary, it remains unknown whether and how predicate
intermediate entity be the specific sensorimotor association from metaphor processing draws from the sensorimotor system, and
verbs or the prototypical agent of verb? When reading novel the mechanism of intermediate entity during predicate metaphor
expressions such as The taxes pinch the industry, does one processing has been unclear. The mixed findings in previous
think of the act of pressing something between a thumb and literature could be a result of difference in metaphor novelty,
a finger, a painful feeling, or a pair of shoes (a prototypical language proficiency and experimental paradigms. Given that
entity that pinches)? When reading familiar expressions such English predicate metaphors are unfamiliar to Chinese L2
as The media bent the truth, does one directly retrieve the learners whose mother tongue has less of this construction,
abstract meaning “distort” from long-term memory or rely on the a second language perspective could help to reveal more
concrete act of “causing to curve”? In this study, we assumed that about the embodied features of predicate metaphor processing.
if predicate metaphors are processed via intermediate entities, Taken together, we form the following questions: (1) Does
the sensorimotor aspects of verbs, then the pictures describing the embodiment of verbs (i.e., the activation of sensorimotor
verb-related action can facilitate the understanding of metaphors. aspects) influence L2 predicate metaphor processing? (2)
It is well-known fact that understanding metaphors in a How is the embodiment effect different between higher-level
second or foreign language may impose great difficulty due to and lower-level Chinese L2 learners when they read English
linguistic barrier. Thus, untangling how L2 learners process L2 conventional predicate metaphors and novel metaphors? (3) Are
metaphors could have important insights for those trying to L2 predicate metaphors comprehended via intermediate entity in
teach a second language (Littlemore, 2009, 2019). There has an indirect process?
been a great body of literature exploring relationships between
metaphors processing and second language learning in terms MATERIALS AND METHODS
of conceptual metaphor theory (Yasuda, 2010; Lu and Sun,
2017), metaphorical competence (Danesi, 1993; Littlemore and Participants
Low, 2006), metaphor awareness (Guo, 2007; Chen and Lai, Participants were 100 paid native Chinese undergraduates who
2012; Boers, 2013), imagery (Ifantidou and Hatzidaki, 2019) and majored in English and have been learning English as second
individual differences (Johnson and Rosano, 1993; Wegner et al., language since primary school. They were divided into two
2020). Previous ERPs studies on bilingual metaphor processing proficiency groups—higher-level group were 45 junior English
found neural similarities and difference in metaphor processing majors (age range 21–23) who passed the National Test for English
between L1 and L2 (Dong, 2013; Park and Chung, 2013; Xue Major, Band 8), and lower-level group (age range 17–18) were
et al., 2014; Liu, 2016; Jankowiak et al., 2017, 2021; Wang, 2018). 55 freshmen who scored above 120 on the National College
Although metaphoric meaning integration might be of similarity Matriculation English Test. Informed consent was obtained from
in L1 and L2, L2 learners require more intensive cognitive each participant prior to the experiment.
mechanism or continued effort in lexicon-semantic access and
tended to adopt L1 neural pathway to process L2 metaphors. Materials
However, Citron et al. (2020) found L2 speakers were less The experiment contained three types of materials - target
affected by increasing metaphoricity than L1 speakers, suggesting sentences, comprehension sentences and pictures. A total
metaphorical language is not necessarily engaging in L2 speakers. of 96 target sentences (see Table 1 and Supplementary file)
Yet this research did not take L2 proficiency into consideration were equally divided into four groups: conventional predicate
since several neural studies found that L2 proficiency difference metaphors (CMs), novel predicate metaphors (NMs) and
had an impact on neural activities in the brain areas responsible their corresponding literal sentences (L-CMs, L-NMs). They
for novel metaphors (Dong, 2013; Liu, 2016). were selected from previous studies (Cardillo et al., 2012;
Most literature of L2 metaphor comprehension focused Desai et al., 2013) and two online dictionaries (https://www.
on nominal metaphors and temporal-spatial metaphors, but thefreedictionary.com/ & https://dictionary.cambridge.org/).
lacked discussion upon predicate metaphors. Most ERPs studies Metaphors were rated in terms of novelty ratings by another
described the processing mechanism at the neural level, but group of 42 undergraduate English majors using a 7-point scale
behavioral evidences that probe into the embodied features of L2 (1 being very common, 7 being very novel). The novelty degree
metaphor processing are insufficient. As predicate metaphors are of novel metaphors was significantly higher than conventional
cognitively challenging, how sensorimotor stimulation facilitates ones [t (1,46) = 15.991, p = 0.000]. All sentences were edited to
L2 predicate metaphor processing becomes an important fit experimental purposes - predicate metaphors use action verbs
concern. According to dual coding theory, verbal information figuratively while literal sentences had the same verbs to describe
(e.g., language) and non-verbal information (e.g., image) both an event. The subjects in metaphors and literal sentences were
contribute to cognition. From a bilingual point of view (Schnotz designed to induce either figurative or literal meanings of verbs.
and Horz, 2010), lower-level L2 learners can perform better with In the metaphor set, the subjects were the entities that make
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3 November 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 759175Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
TABLE 1 | Examples of the four types of target sentences and comprehension sentences.
Sentence type Target sentences Comprehension sentences in Chinese (L1)
in English (L2)
CM The newspaper bent the truth. 报纸歪曲了事实。 (bào zhǐ wāi qū le shì shí)
L-CM The repairman bent the pipe. 修理工掰弯管子。 (xiū lǐ gōng bāi wān guǎn zi)
NM The tax pinched the industry. 税收损伤这个行业。 (shuì shōu sǔn shāng zhè gè háng yè)
L-NM The man pinched my face. 男人捏了捏我的脸。 (nán rén niē le niē wǒ de liǎn)
CM, conventional metaphor; NM, novel metaphor; L-CM & L-NM are the literal counterparts to conventional metaphors and novel metaphors, respectively. Underlined words indicate
the English verbs.
TABLE 2 | Means of sentential and lexical properties of metaphors and literals. TABLE 3 | Percentage of concept agreement, mean visual complexity and
familiarity.
Properties CMs Literals NMs Literals
Properties Related pictures Unrelated pictures
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
CMs NMs CMs NMs
Sentences M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Novelty 2.229 (0.60) 1.178 (0.20) 4.915 (0.56) 1.349 (0.43)
Familiarity 5.482 (0.74) 5.724 (0.71) 4.187 (1.02) 5.701 (1.00) Concept agreement 0.909 (0.53) 0.910 (0.07) 0.870 (0.19) 0.859 (0.18)
Reading ease 6.221 (0.43) 6.344 (0.40) 5.777 (0.56) 6.091 (0.68) Visual complexity 1.954 (0.28) 2.121 (0.32) 2.125 (0.72) 2.030 (0.66)
Words 5.540 (0.66) 5.670 (0.82) 5.540 (0.66) 5.620 (0.82) Familiarity 4.258 (0.26) 4.076 (0.38) 4.270 (0.63) 4.205 (0.58)
Letters 25.46 (2.02) 25.08 (3.12) 25.58 (3.40) 23.88 (3.84) CMs are conventional metaphors, and NMs are novel metaphors.
Verbs
Letters 4.580 (0.97) 5.000 (0.93)
Frequency 0.865 (0.80) 0.532 (0.62) verbs from conventional and novel metaphors [verbs in CMs:
Familiarity 6.607 (0.50) 6.227 (0.81) MHigher = 6.626, MLower = 6.564, t (1,46) = 0.407, p > 0.05;
Concreteness 5.008 (0.95) 5.115 (0.52) verbs in NMs: MHigher = 6.276, MLower = 6.178, t (1,46) = 0.402,
Imageability 5.242 (0.67) 5.295 (0.49) p > 0.05]. Both groups know the verbs well and the embodiment
Embodiment 6.085 (0.53) 5.798 (1.19) priming from action pictures would not be a result of differences
in verb familiarity. No difference was found in the familiarity of
CMs are conventional metaphors, and NMs are novel metaphors. Frequency values were
taken from iWeb as average log per million frequency. The values for concreteness and
conventional metaphors [CM: MHigher = 5.034, MLower = 4.792,
imageability were converted from the MRC Psycholinguistic Database (Coltheart, 1981). t (1,46) = 1.200, p > 0.05]. Since familiarity is correlated with the
The ratings for embodiment were based on relative embodiment (Sidhu et al., 2014). frequency in the corpus and conventionality refers to the degree
to which an expression is associated with figurative meaning (Al-
literal physical actions seemingly unlikely (e.g., the newspaper Azary and Katz, 2021), the metaphor familiarity was adopted to
and the tax), which encourages participants to discover the non- represent conventionality. The ratings showed that CMs were
literal aspects of metaphors and abstract figurative meanings. In largely considered conventional to both groups.
contrast, the subjects in literal sentences are always persons or Comprehension sentences were Chinese literal sentences
animate entities (e.g., repairman and father). Metaphorical and that were either correct or wrong translation of English
literal sentences were matched in terms of syntactic forms, subject metaphors and literal counterparts. It was designed to encourage
animacy and abstraction levels. Three native English speakers attentiveness and examine the comprehension accuracy.
proofread the sentences to guarantee naturalness. Participants should judge whether the Chinese translations
Another 34 undergraduate English majors rated the linguistic were correct interpretations of English metaphors or literals. All
proprieties of verbs and target sentences in Table 2 using a 7- Chinese sentences, translated and proofread by two proficient
point Likert scale. Critically, a significant difference emerged Chinese-English bilinguals, were matched in the number of
between conventional metaphors and novel metaphors in the Chinese characters, interpretability and familiarity (ratings
sentence familiarity (p = 0.000) and reading ease (p = 0.005) assigned by 20 Chinese speakers, all ps > 0.05). The yes/no
since the novel metaphors were less familiar and more difficult to answers to comprehension tasks were equal in numbers and
understand. There were no striking differences in the frequency, counterbalanced across metaphors, literals and fillers.
familiarity, concreteness, imageability and relative embodiment Pictures were the priming stimuli and were divided into
of verbs or in the number of words and letters in target action-related pictures and unrelated pictures. Related pictures
sentences (see Table 2, all ps > 0.05). In addition, a separate 7- carry action association and sensorimotor elements relevant to
point rating on verb familiarity and metaphor familiarity was the verbs while unrelated pictures are irrelevant to action and
conducted by another 30 senior English majors and 30 freshmen depict static objects that have little motor association. These
English majors. There was no familiarity difference between stimuli are based on a picture-naming study (Zhang and Yang,
higher-level learners and lower-level learners when they read the 2003) or other picture banks on the internet and then edited for
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4 November 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 759175Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
experimental purposes. They are drawings in white lines with (1,90) = 213.260, p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.703; F2 (1,46) = 66.387,
black ground and rated by 56 undergraduates in terms of picture- p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.591], and novelty [F1 (1,90) = 126.12, p = 0.000,
concept agreement, visual complexity and familiarity. There were ηp2 = 0.584; F2 (1,46) = 12.529, p = 0.001, ηp2 = 0.214]. The
no significant differences between action-related pictures and between-subjects effect of proficiency was also significant [F1
action-unrelated pictures (see Table 3, all ps > 0.05). (1,90) = 4.358, p = 0.040, ηp2 = 0.046; F2 (1,46) = 5.676,
p = 0.021, ηp2 = 0.110]. Pairwise comparison showed that
Procedure participants spent less time processing predicate metaphors in the
The sentences and pictures were presented visually on the screen action-related pictures condition than in the unrelated condition
(see Figure 1). After 500 ms fixation, a picture was presented (MRelated = 3022.7 ms < MUnrelated = 3240.4 ms, p = 0.000);
for 2,000 ms when participants decided whether it depicted an literal sentences were processed much faster than metaphorical
action or static object as quickly as possible with a button press. sentences (ML = 2825.1 ms < MM = 3438.0 ms, p = 0.000); all
Immediately, a target sentence followed, and participants were target sentences in the conventional conditions were processed
asked to press the space bar as soon as they understood it. faster than in the novel condition (MCM = 2971.4 ms < MNM
Reaction times (RTs) were measured from the onset of target = 3291.8 ms, p = 0.000). Higher-level group spent less time
sentences until appropriate keys were pressed. Then, Chinese in reading target sentences than lower-level group did (MHigh
comprehension sentences appeared, and participants decided = 2941.3 ms < MLow = 3321.9 ms, p = 0.040).
whether the translations were correct by pressing keys. Accuracy The two-factor interactions were significant between sentence
in comprehension tasks was recorded. Each participant read type and novelty (F1 = 56.732, p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.387; F2 = 17.843,
each target sentence, either primed with an action-related picture p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.279), between prime and sentence type
or unrelated picture, once. Metaphors, literals and priming
(F1 = 6.032, p = 0.016, ηp2 = 0.063, F2 0.05). In the related
comprehension accuracy for higher-level group and lower-level priming conditions, literals were processed much faster than
group is 91 and 89%, respectively, indicating that the participants metaphor (MM = 3309.6 ms < ML = 2783.1 ms, t (1,183) =
were engaged and attentive in the experiment. The analysis of 10.496, p = 0.000) and in the unrelated conditions, the differences
reaction time was performed on the correct trials. between sentences types were a bit greater (MM = 3622.4 ms
Table 4 shows the mean reaction time and mean < ML = 2910.5 ms, t (1,183) = 13.081, p = 0.000). Similarly,
accuracy. Concerning the data of metaphors, we found that conventional targets were read faster than novel targets when
conventional metaphors and novel metaphors were processed they were primed with the pictures of actions (MC = 2918.7 ms
faster in the related priming condition than the unrelated < MN = 3072.4 ms, t (1,183) = −3.248, p = 0.001), but
priming condition (CM: MRelated = 3073.8 ms < MUnrelated when the pictures were not action-related, the differences were
= 3289.3 ms, p = 0.000; NM: MRelated = 3545.4 ms < MUnrelated slightly greater (MC = 3174.0 ms < MN = 3460.5 ms, t (1,183)
= 3955.4 ms, p = 0.000). Specifically, in the higher- = −6.983, p = 0.000). Figure 2 showed that the time gap
level group, novel metaphors had a significant priming between conventional targets and novel targets was smaller in
effect (MRelated = 3328.9 ms < MUnrelated = 3661.1 ms, the related-picture condition than in the unrelated conditions,
p = 0.002) on reaction time while conventional metaphors suggesting the embodied priming effect was influenced by
and literals did not; in the lower-level group, the strongest metaphor novelty.
priming effect was observed in the novel metaphors Accuracy data presented a main effect for prime only with item
(MRelated = 3712.0 ms < MUnrelated = 4181.9 ms, analysis (F2 = 4.697, p = 0.035, ηp2 = 0.093) but a stronger effect
p = 0.000,), followed by the conventional metaphors for novelty (F1 = 37.303, p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.239; F2 = 7.835,
(MRelated = 3236.4 ms < MUnrelated = 3480.1 ms, p = 0.004). p = 0.007, ηp2 = 0.146). Proficiency had little effect on accuracy
Therefore, the results of priming size seems to present a gradual (F1 = 3.032, p > 0.05; F2Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
FIGURE 1 | Procedure in the priming condition.
TABLE 4 | Mean (SD) reaction time (RTs) of target sentences and accuracy (ACC).
Sentence type Level RTs (ms) Diff. ACC (%) Diff.
Related prime Unrelated prime Related prime Unrelated prime
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
CMs High 2862.5 (770.5) 3041.2 (918.1) 178.7 92.9 (7.7) 91.8 (7.3) −1.0
Low 3236.4 (862.4) 3480.1 (1135.8) 243.7 89.3(10.1) 88.8 (9.1) −0.5
Total 3073.8 (840.3) 3289.3 (1063.9) 205.5 90.8 (9.3) 90.1 (8.5) −0.3
NMs High 3328.9 (945.6) 3661.1 (1138.7) 332.2 91.3 (9.1) 89.4 (9.5) −1.9
Low 3712.0 (1158.1) 4181.9 (1334.9) 469.9 87.1 (9.9) 88.6 (9.5) −1.5
Total 3545.4 (1082.3) 3955.4 (1273.5) 410.0 88.9 (9.7) 88.9 (9.4) 0.0
L-CMs High 2568.3 (797.3) 2673.6 (742.2) 105.3 93.6 (6.2) 90.3 (9.3) −3.2
Low 2913.7 (943.0) 2995.3 (934.6) 81.7 92.6 (7.6) 92.3 (7.9) −0.3
Total 2763.5 (894.7) 2855.4 (866.8) 91.9 93.0 (7.0) 91.5 (8.5) −1.5
L-NMs High 2607.3 (765.1) 2787.3 (777.0) 180.1 88.8 (9.9) 86.1 (9.4) −2.7
Low 2952.9 (818.1) 3102.8 (919.2) 149.9 86.4 (9.8) 86.4 (11.1) 0.0
Total 2802.6 (809.7) 2965.6 (870.1) 163.0 87.5 (9.9) 86.3 (10.4) −1.2
CMs are conventional metaphor; NMs are novel metaphor; L-CMs & L-NMs are the literal counterparts to conventional metaphors and novel metaphors, respectively; High and Low
refer to higher-level learners and lower-level learners, respectively. Diff. refers to the priming size between priming conditions.
For higher-level learners, the three-way ANOVA of prime and L-NMs did not (ML−CM = 2621 ms < ML−NM = 2697 ms,
(2) × sentence type (2) × novelty (2) showed significant main p > 0.05).
effects of prime [F1 (1,39) = 17.356, p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.308; Although a three-factor interaction was not observed,
F2 (1,23) = 33.831, p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.595], sentence type [F1 the reaction times of novel metaphors were greatly
reduced when primed with related pictures, but those
(1,39) = 110.995, p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.740; F2 (1,23) = 35.055,
of conventional metaphors were not affected [see
p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.604] and novelty [F1 (1,39) = 46.184, p = 0.000, Table 4, NM: MRelated = 3328.9 ms < MUnrelated =
ηp2 = 0.542; F2 (1,23) = 8.892, p = 0.007, ηp2 = 0.279]. Yet 3661.1 ms, t (1,79) = −3.272, p = 0.002; CM: MRelated =
different to the four-way ANOVA, only one interaction effect was 3328.9 ms < MUnrelated = 3661.1 ms, t (1,79) = −2.018,
found between sentence type and novelty [F1 (1,39) = 24.619, p > 0.05]. This result may be due to participants’ higher
p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.387; F2 (1,23) = 11.921, p = 0.002, ηp2 L2 proficiency and familiarity with conventional metaphors.
= 0.341]. The reaction time of conventional metaphors and Higher-level L2 learners draw on the sensorimotor information
novel metaphors differed greatly [MCM = 2952 ms < MNM of verbs when they comprehend unfamiliar predicate metaphors
= 3495 ms, t (1,79) = −8.409, p = 0.000], while that of L-CMs while the concrete aspects of verbs are not essential when they
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6 November 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 759175Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
TABLE 5 | Results of four-way ANOVA analysis on RTs. 91.6% < MUnrelated = 89.4%, p = 0.013), and less accuracy in
the novel groups (MCM = 92.1% < MNM = 88.9 %, p = 0.000).
Effect F value p ηp2
Neither the main effect of sentence type nor any interaction effects
Prime 46.79 0.000 *** 0.342 were found in comprehension accuracy.
Sentence type 213.3 0.000 *** 0.703 For lower-level group, the three-way ANOVA of reaction time
Novelty 126.12 0.000 *** 0.584 revealed significant main effects of prime [F1 (1, 51) = 31.632,
Proficiency 4.358 0.040 * 0.046
p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.383; F2 (1, 23) = 32.988, p = 0.000, ηp2 =
Prime x proficiency 0.342 0.560 0.004 0.589], novelty [F1 (1, 51) = 85.891, p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.627; F2
Sentence type x proficiency 1.339 0.250 0.015 (1, 23) = 4.453, p = 0.046, ηp2 = 0.162] and sentence type [F1
Novelty x proficiency 0.139 0.710 0.002 (1, 51) = 117.68, p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.698; F2 (1, 23) = 31.558,
Prime x sentence type 6.032 0.016 * 0.063 p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.578]. Although the results of main effects were
Prime x novelty 5.208 0.025 * 0.055 similar between two groups, two significant interactions were
Sentence type x novelty 56.73 0.000 *** 0.387 found between sentence type and novelty [F1 (1, 51) = 33.838,
Prime x novelty x proficiency 0.083 0.773 0.001 p = 0.000, ηp2 = 0.399; F2 (1, 23) = 6.093, p = 0.021, ηp2 = 0.209]
Prime x sentence type x novelty 1.089 0.299 0.012 and prime and sentence type [F1 (1, 51) = 6.060, p = 0.017,
Sentence type x novelty x proficiency 0.139 0.711 0.002 ηp2 = 0.106; F2 (1, 23) = 1.195, p = 0.286]. Based on the data
Prime x sentence type x novelty x proficiency 0.122 0.728 0.001 of metaphors, the interaction between prime and novelty was also
***p < 0.001 and *p < 0.05.
significant [F1 (1, 51) =6.624, p = 0.013, ηp2 = 0.115; F2Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
that conventionalization or abstraction plays a crucial role– Metaphor Novelty and L2 Proficiency
novel metaphors rely more on sensorimotor information Novel metaphors were found to be linked with creative thinking
about source concept, but their figurative meanings can (Rataj et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2019) and require deeper
become abstracted through repeated use and conventionalized. processing. The career of metaphor theory (Bowdle and Gentner,
Sensorimotor information is gradually minimized or shed while 2005) holds that when first reading a novel metaphor, people
core abstract meanings remain salient (Chen et al., 2008; prefer it to be expressed in simile form that involves an explicit
Binder and Jeffrey, 2016; Zwaan and Rolf, 2016). According comparison (e.g., A is like B), but it shifts into a metaphoric
to a graded view of conceptual embodiment (Desai et al., form (e.g., A is B) over the course of familiarization. Metaphoric
2011), conceptual representation consists of multiple levels of abstraction derived from the comparison was stored in memory,
abstraction from sensorimotor inputs, but access to abstract and people categorize metaphors as members of an abstract
meaning is subject to frequency or familiarity. For conventional category. Likewise, predicate metaphors follow such a natural
metaphors, the representations existing in the brain are sufficient history - evolving from novel to familiar metaphors until they
for adequate and fast processing. For novel metaphors, the lose most of their figurative meaning (Schmidt et al., 2010; Desai
stimulation of sensorimotor information can contribute to a et al., 2011, 2013; Cardillo et al., 2012). In line with this, novel
better understanding of new metaphoric meaning. metaphors seem to be more susceptible to embodiment priming
We postulate that if the sensorimotor system does have while conventional metaphors are not.
an important role, the priming of action pictures should Regarding a second language, however, a different result is
be outstanding on L2 predicate metaphor processing. This observed: higher-level L2 learners received a significant priming
assumption was born out of embodied views, and the imagery effect only in the novel metaphors whereas this effect was found
account that the images play a role in prompting “emergent” in both conventional metaphors and novel metaphors among
properties, such as a feeling or experience, which are not lower-level L2 learners. The results demonstrate a consistent
directly linked with the literal meaning of the metaphor vehicle effect that has been shown with native English speaker in a
(Carston, 2010; Ifantidou and Hatzidaki, 2019). Our findings cross-modal lexical priming study (Al-Azary and Katz, 2021).
show a significant priming effect among higher-level L2 learners They found low-familiar nominal metaphors (e.g., Health is glass)
- novel metaphors benefited from embodiment effect of action primed bodied-action associates (e.g., break) but not abstract
pictures while conventional metaphors did not. However, lower- associates (e.g., fragile), and low-familiar metaphors were hence
level L2 learners processed both types of metaphor much processed via simulations, whereas high-familiar metaphors only
faster in the related-picture priming condition (see Table 4. primed abstraction associates. Given that metaphor novelty is
Diff Lower−NM = 469.9 ms, Diff Higher−NM = 332.2 ms; Diff relative to familiarity and language proficiency, lower-level L2
Lower−CM = 243.7 ms), which suggests that lower level L2 brains learners and novel predicate metaphors are more likely to receive
may rely more on sensorimotor system and these concrete greater priming effect by sensorimotor activation.
experiences may not be eliminated in the conventional metaphor Graded salience hypothesis (Giora, 1997, 2003) proposed that
processing. Such L2 evidence pertains to previous L1 studies metaphorical meanings that are highly salient can be accessed
(Desai et al., 2013; Jamrozik et al., 2016) and also echoes the first. The novel metaphors in native languages and conventional
graded view of conceptual embodiment. metaphors in second languages were found to be activated in the
From the bilingual perspective of dual coding theory (Soh, same areas of right hemisphere, responsible for non-salient and
2010; Paivio, 2014), verbal systems of bilinguals are separate, novel meaning. In other words, metaphors that are conventional
but their non-verbal systems are generally shared. It has been to native speakers could appear familiar to proficient L2 learners
predicted that lower-level L2 learners will perform better with but unfamiliar to less proficient learners. This might be relevant
two information sources (e.g., pictures and text) while higher- to our findings as lower L2 proficiency may render less salience
level learners will perform well with only one source (e.g., in conventional metaphors, embodied picture priming may pre-
text, Schnotz and Horz, 2010). This may explain why the activate such salience and help less proficient L2 learners to
priming benefits from pictures in this study were greatest understand both conventional and novel predicate metaphors.
when lower-level L2 learners read novel metaphors while little Besides, a given concept is distributed over multiple modality-
benefits were found for the higher-level group when they read specific systems. For example, patients with motor system
conventional metaphors. impairment shifted their reliance on motion-specific information
Studies have found an embodiment effect of pictures and to representations in the visual system (Barsalou, 2016). Then,
gestures on word learning and memories (Mayer et al., 2015) in the case of lower-level L2 learners, they may benefit
or embodied representations in abstract words (Meteyard et al., from seeing multiple sensorimotor information from visual
2012; Borghi and Zarcone, 2016; Repetto et al., 2017), yet for the pictures when they encounter difficulties in understanding
first time we observe a graded priming effect of embodiment, predicate metaphors.
subject to L2 proficiency levels and one type of sensorimotor
input - pictures representing action. Since a simple opposition
between the strong and weak view of embodiment does not Sensorimotor Elements as Intermediate
capture the subtleties (Mahon and Hickok, 2016), a hybrid and Entity
graded view of the embodiment effect, regarding other factors, There has long been debate as to whether metaphors are
should be necessary to a sufficient theory. processed as abstractions or concrete representation. As an
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8 November 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 759175Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
abstraction view, direct categorization (Torreano et al., 2005; the lexical levels are usually separated. For predicate metaphors,
Glucksberg, 2008) holds that categorization of predicate strengthening the link from an L2 verb to an L1 concept
metaphors is a course of abstraction from verbs, directly may help an L2 learner to retrieve abstract meanings faster.
attributing properties to topics. However, studies have shown The dual coding theory of bilingual memory (Paivio and
that predicate metaphor processing may undergo indirect Csapo, 1969; Paivio, 2014) proposes that words are represented
categorization via an intermediate entity (Utsumi and Sakamoto, cognitively by verbal codes (e.g., text) and non-verbal codes
2007, 2011). In view of embodied cognition and simulation view, (e.g., image), and semantic and sensorimotor information
we postulate that this intermediate entity might be sensorimotor about concrete words is located in an imaginal system that
aspects of verbs, and concrete features of an action concept play is shared by L1 and L2. Therefore, action pictures that
a role in L2 predicate metaphor processing. The findings of the stimulate L2 mental images and deliver semantic-sensorimotor
present study gave preliminary evidence to our assumption. information of verbs are likely to mediate access to the L1
An intermediate entity could be the prototypical agent concept and thus facilitate L2 learners’ comprehension of
that performs an action literally referred to by a verb or an predicate metaphors.
abstract action obtained by abstracting a verb, but previous In the classroom, L2 teachers can use concrete pictures
studies failed to identify what was involved (Caillies and describing the action of verbs or encourage a mental simulation
Declercq, 2011; Utsumi and Sakamoto, 2011; Obert et al., of the imagery of the action. Since lower-level L2 learners will
2018). In the present study, the sensorimotor information has a perform better with both verbal and non-verbal information
priming effect on novel metaphors and lower-level L2 learners, (Schnotz and Horz, 2010), a special emphasis on multimodal
but did not affect higher-level learners’ comprehension on instruction concerning verb embodiment or arousal of
conventional metaphors. This suggests that lower-level learners their sensor-motor-affective system becomes important for
process predicate metaphor via “sensorimotor” intermediate L2 learners’ comprehension and memory. In addition, an
entity through an indirect way, whereas higher-lever leaners explanation about intermediate entities, such as sensorimotor
may go through direct categorization in which figurative features and prototypical agents of verbs, could help them
meaning is understood via abstraction but concrete meanings understand how concrete aspects of verbs are mapped to
of verbs are shed (Cardillo et al., 2012; Desai et al., 2013; abstract meaning.
Jamrozik et al., 2016). At this point, we proposed a hybrid
model of categorization for L2 predicate metaphors, relative to
language proficiency. This is also consistent to the simulation- CONCLUSION
abstraction hybrid view on the mechanism of nominal metaphors
(Al-Azary and Katz, 2021). Given the difficulties L2 learners experience with metaphoric
Previous ERP studies that observed a two-stage time course language comprehension and the paucity of research on
can explain our results. Lai et al. (2019) found that metaphoric predicate metaphors, this study first explored how embodiment
sense in predicate metaphor is based on concrete action influences L2 learners’ processing of predicate metaphors.
semantics because the metaphoric-concrete effect was significant The sensorimotor elements of action-related pictures
within an early time window (200–500 ms). Obert et al. (2018) provided a graded priming effect, which was modulated
observed not only an N400, an index of retrieval of an by L2 proficiency and metaphor novelty. The present
intermediate entity, but also a late positive effect - an integration findings not only have important theoretical implications
process that distinguished metaphors from literal expressions. for embodied cognition and categorization model for metaphor
In the present study, if abstraction or direct categorization processing, but also offers practical suggestions for L2 acquisition
occurred first or the sensorimotor system played an ephemeral and teaching.
role, the embodiment priming effect of action pictures should However, there are limitations in the study. First, the
have been little. In contrast, a significant effect was found. familiarity rating for the verbs in the novel metaphors was
Despite being a behavioral experiment, the present study relatively lower, although not at a significant level. Second,
contributes to this line of literature by including L2 proficiency, pictures may carry literal sense of the verb and the present
metaphor novelty and a priming paradigm that can specify study did not manage to exclude it from picture priming due
an intermediate entity. However, it remains to be seen what to design difficulty. Third, the other types of intermediate
other types of intermediate entity (e.g., prototypical agents entity were not addressed here. If the hypothesis about indirect
or auditory aspects of verbs) are involved and the findings categorization was correct, then it would be expected that the
of present study cannot rule out other processing model of auditory aspects of verbs may serve as the intermediate entity
predicate metaphors. to facilitate auditory predicate metaphor processing. Despite
a body of fMRI studies on predicate metaphors, more ERP
L2 Predicate Metaphor Pedagogy and eye-tracking studies are needed to investigate the time
According to the revised hierarchical model (Kroll and Stewart, course, attention and other qualitative features. For example,
1994), L1 has a stronger link and direct access to meaning, participants tend to focus on subject-verb phrases and rate
but L2 is more likely to require mediation via L1 translation higher metaphoricity for subject-noun phrase sentences over
until the bilingual acquired sufficient L2 proficiency. The object-noun phrase sets (Torreano et al., 2005). This indicated
meanings at conceptual levels are shared by L1 and L2, but that more attention was given to the first half of the sentence.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9 November 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 759175Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
In summation, future studies should consider verb familiarity, (review and editing). Both authors contributed to the article and
conventionality, different types of intermediate entities and approved the submitted version.
different experimental methods.
FUNDING
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
This study was supported by the Guangdong Provincial
The original contributions presented in the study are included Philosophy and Social Science Foundation, China [Grant
in the article/Supplementary Material, further inquiries can be No. GD20CWY12].
directed to the corresponding author/s.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ETHICS STATEMENT
We would like to thank Prof. Jeanette Littlemore, Prof. Akira
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on Utsum and Prof. Hamad Al-Azar for their insightful comments
human participants in accordance with the local legislation and for this work. We also thank Dr. Coco Yu and Prof. Jiushu
institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided Xie for their generous help with the experimental design. We
their written informed consent to participate in this study. thank Center for Language Cognition and Assessment (SCNU)
for their support.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
YF contributes greatly to this study, responsible for
conceptualization, methodology, software, experiment, formal The Supplementary Material for this article can be found
analysis, and writing (original draft and editing). RZ was online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.
responsible for supervision, conceptualization, and writing 2021.759175/full#supplementary-material
REFERENCES Chen, Y. C., and Lai, H. L. (2012). EFL learners’ awareness of metonymy-
metaphor continuum in figurative expressions. Lang. Awar. 21, 235–248.
Al-Azary, H., and Katz, A. N. (2021). Do metaphorical sharks bite? Simulation doi: 10.1080/09658416.2011.598527
and abstraction in metaphor processing. Mem. Cognit. 49, 571–571. Citron, F. M. M., and Goldberg, A. E. (2014). Metaphorical sentences are more
doi: 10.3758/s13421-020-01124-3 emotionally engaging than their literal counterparts. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 26,
Bardolph, M., and Coulson, S. (2014). How vertical hand movements 2585–2595. doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_00654
impact brain activity elicited by literally and metaphorically related words: Citron, F. M. M., Michaelis, N., and Goldberg, A. E. (2020). Metaphorical
An ERP study of embodied metaphor. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 8:1031. language processing and amygdala activation in L1 and L2. Neuropsychologia
doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2014.01031 140:107381. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2020.107381
Barsalou, W. L. (2016). On staying grounded and avoiding quixotic dead ends. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Q. J. Experi. Psychol.
Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1122–1142. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1028-3 Section A 33, 497–505. doi: 10.1080/14640748108400805
Binder, and Jeffrey, R. (2016). In defense of abstract conceptual representations. Danesi, M. (1993). “Metaphorical competence in second language acquisition
Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1096–1108. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0909-1 and second language learning: The neglected dimension,” in Language,
Boers, F. (2013). Cognitive linguistic approaches to teaching Communication, and Social Meaning, ed I. J. Alatis (Washington, DC:
vocabulary: assessment and integration. Lang. Teach. 46, 497–498. Georgetown University Press).
doi: 10.1017/S0261444811000450 Desai, R. H., Conant, L. L., Jeffrey, R. B., Park, H., and Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). A
Borghi, A. M., and Zarcone, E. (2016). Grounding abstractness: abstract piece of the action: Modulation of sensory-motor regions by action idioms and
concepts and the activation of the mouth. Front. Psychol. 7:1498. metaphors. Neuroimage 83, 862–869. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.07.044
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01498 Desai, R. H., Jeffrey, R. B., Conant, L., Mano, Q., and Seidenberg, M. (2011). The
Boroditsky, L., and Ramscar, M. (2002). The roles of body and mind in abstract neural career of sensory-motor metaphors. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 23, 2376–2386.
thought. Psychol. Sci. 13, 185–189. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00434 doi: 10.1162/jocn.2010.21596
Bowdle, B. F., and Gentner, D. (2005). The career of metaphor. Psychol. Rev. 112, Dong, X. (2013). Metaphor Representation of English-Chinese Bilingual Under
193–216. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.193 Different Second Language Proficiency: An ERP Study. Dalian: Dalian University
Caillies, S., and Declercq, C. (2011). Kill the song-Steal the show: What of Technology.
does distinguish predicative metaphors from decomposable idioms? J. Estes, Z., Verges, M., and Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Head up, foot down: Object
Psycholinguist. Res. 40, 205–223. doi: 10.1007/s10936-010-9165-8 words orient attention to the objects’ typical location. Psychol. Sci. 19, 93–97.
Cameron, L. (2008). “Metaphor and talk,” in The Cambridge Handbook of doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02051.x
Metaphor and Thought, ed J. R. Gibbs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Gibbs, R. (2013). Walking the walk while thinking about the talk: embodied
Press). doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.013 interpretation of metaphorical narratives. J. Psycholinguist. Res. 42, 363–378.
Cardillo, E. R., Watson, C. E., Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., and Chatterjee, A. doi: 10.1007/s10936-012-9222-6
(2012). From novel to familiar: Tuning the brain for metaphors. Neuroimage Gibbs, R. W. (2006a). Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge
59, 3212–3221. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.11.079 University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511805844
Carston, R. (2010). Metaphor: ad hoc concepts, literal meaning and mental images. Gibbs, R. W. (2006b). Metaphor interpretation as embodied simulation. Mind
Proc. Aristotelian Soc. 110, 295–321. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9264.2010.00288.x Lang. 21, 434–458. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2006.00285.x
Chen, E., Widick, P., and Chatterjee, A. (2008). Functional-anatomical Gibbs, R. W., Lima, P. L. C., and Francozo, E. (2004). Metaphor
organization of predicate metaphor processing. Brain Lang. 107, 194–202. is grounded in embodied experience. J. Pragmat. 36, 1189–1210.
doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2008.06.007 doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.009
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 November 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 759175Feng and Zhou Embodiment Effect on Predicate Metaphor
Giora, R. (1997). Understanding figurative and literal language: The graded Mahon, B. Z., and Hickok, G. (2016). Arguments about the nature of
salience hypothesis. Cogn. Linguist. 8, 183–206. doi: 10.1515/cogl.1997.8.3.183 concepts: Symbols, embodiment, and beyond. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 941–958.
Giora, R. (2003). On Our Mind: Salience, Context, and doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1045-2
Figurative Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mayer, M. K., Yildiz, I. B., Macedonia, M., and Von?Kriegstein, K. (2015). Visual
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195136166.001.0001 and motor cortices differentially support the translation of foreign language
Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. words. Curr. Biol. 25, 530–535. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.068
Wiley Interdisc. Rev. Cognit. Sci. 1, 586–596. doi: 10.1002/wcs.55 Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., and Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of
Glenberg, A. M., and Kaschak, M. P. (2002). Grounding language in action. age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex 48,
Psychon. Bull. Rev. 9, 558–565. doi: 10.3758/BF03196313 788–804. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2010.11.002
Glucksberg, S. (2001). Understanding figurative language: from Obert, A., Gierski, F., and Caillies, S. (2018). He catapulted his words from the dais:
metaphor to idioms. Contemp. Psychol. APA Rev. Books 18, 55–61. An ERP investigation of novel verbal metaphors. J. Neurolinguistics 47, 59–70.
doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195111095.001.0001 doi: 10.1016/j.jneuroling.2018.02.008
Glucksberg, S. (2003). The psycholinguistics of metaphor. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, Obert, A., Gierski, F., Calmus, A., Portefaix, C., Declercq, C., Pierot, L., et al. (2014).
92–96. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(02)00040-2 Differential bilateral involvement of the parietal gyrus during predicative
Glucksberg, S. (2008). How Metaphors Create Categories-Quickly. The Cambridge metaphor processing: An auditory fMRI study. Brain Lang. 137, 112–119.
Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2014.08.002
doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511816802.006 Paivio, A. (2014). Bilingual Dual Coding Theory and Memory. New York, NY:
Goatly, A. (2011). The Language of Metaphors (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9218-4_3
Guo, S. F. (2007). Is idiom comprehension influenced by metaphor awareness of Paivio, A., and Csapo, K. (1969). Concrete image and verbal memory codes. J.
the learners? A case study of Chinese EFL learners. Linguist. J. 3, 148–166. Experi. Psychol. 80, 279–285. doi: 10.1037/h0027273
Ifantidou, E., and Hatzidaki, A. (2019). Metaphor comprehension Park, M.-K., and Chung, W. (2013). Processing of conventional and novel
in L2: Meaning, images and emotions. J. Pragmat. 149, 78–90. conceptual metaphors by Korean L2 Learners of English: An ERP Study. Korean
doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.06.005 J. Linguistics 38, 605–627. doi: 10.18855/lisoko.2013.38.3.005
Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Rataj, K., Przekoracka-Krawczyk, A., and Lubbe, R. (2018). On understanding
Evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press. creative language: The late positive complex and novel metaphor
Jamrozik, A., McQuire, M., Cardillo, E. R., and Chatterjee, A. (2016). Metaphor: comprehension. Brain Res. 1678:231. doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2017.10.030
bridging embodiment to abstraction. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 1080–1089. Repetto, C., Pedroli, E., and Macedonia, M. (2017). Enrichment effects of gestures
doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0861-0 and pictures on abstract words in a second language. Front. Psychol. 8:2136.
Jankowiak, K., Naranowicz, M., and Rataj, K. (2021). Metaphors are like lenses: doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02136
Electrophysiological correlates of novel meaning processing in bilingualism. Richardson, D. C., Michael, J. S., Edelman, S., and Naples, A. J. (2001). “Language
Int. J. Bilingualism 25:6820. doi: 10.1177/1367006921996820 is spatial: experimental evidence for image schemas of concrete and abstract
Jankowiak, K., Rataj, K., and Nasktcki, R. (2017). To electrify bilingualism: verbs,” in Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science
Electrophysiological insights into bilingual metaphor comprehension. PLoS Society, 873–878.
ONE 12:e175578. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175578 Richardson, D. C., Spivey, M. J., Barsalou, L. W., and Mcrae, K. (2003). Spatial
Johnson, J., and Rosano, T. (1993). Relation of cognitive style to metaphor representations activated during real-time comprehension of verbs. Cogn. Sci.
interpretation and second language proficiency. Appl. Psycholingus 14, 27, 767–780. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2705_4
159–175. doi: 10.1017/S014271640000953X Schmidt, G. L., Kranjec, A., Cardillo, E. R., and Chatterjee, A. (2010). Beyond
Kroll, J. F., and Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture laterality: a critical assessment of research on the neural basis of metaphor. J.
naming: evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 16, 1–5. doi: 10.1017/S1355617709990543
representations. J. Memory Lang. 33, 149–174. doi: 10.1006/jmla.1994.1008 Schnotz, W., and Horz, H. (2010). “New media, learning from,” in International
Lacey, S., Stilla, R., and Sathian, K. (2012). Metaphorically feeling: Comprehending Encyclopedia of Education (Third Edition), eds P. Peterson, E. Baker, and B.
textural metaphors activates somatosensory cortex. Brain Lang. 120, 416–421. McGaw (Oxford: Elsevier). doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.00740-5
doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2011.12.016 Sidhu, D. M., Kwan, R., Pexman, P. M., and Siakaluk, P. D. (2014). Effects of
Lai, V. T., Howerton, O., and Desai, R. H. (2019). Concrete processing relative embodiment in lexical and semantic processing of verbs. Acta Psychol.
of action metaphors: evidence from ERP. Brain Res. 1714, 202–209. 149, 32–39. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.02.009
doi: 10.1016/j.brainres.2019.03.005 Soh, K. C. (2010). Bilingual Dual-Coding and Code-Switching: IMPLICATIONS for
Lakoff, G., and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By (1st ed.). Chicago IL: the L1 in L2 Learning. Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching. 271–296.
University of Chicago Press. Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., and Pasma,
Lauro, L. J. R., Mattavelli, G., Papagno, C., and Tettamanti, M. (2013). She T. (2010). A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification From MIP to MIPVU
runs, the road runs, my mind runs, bad blood runs between us: Literal (1st ed.). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/celcr.14
and figurative motion verbs: An fMRI study. Neuroimage 83, 361–371. Torreano, L., Cacciari, C., and Glucksberg, S. (2005). When dogs can fly: level of
doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.06.050 abstraction as a cue to metaphorical use of verbs. Metaphor Symbol 20, 259–274.
Littlemore, J. (2009). “Eyebrow heads and yummy mummies’ metaphor and doi: 10.1207/s15327868ms2004_2
second language learning,” in Applying Cognitive Linguistics to Second Language Utsumi, A., and Sakamoto, M. (2007). Predicative Metaphors Are Understood as
Learning and Teaching, ed Littlemore, J. (London: Palgrave Macmillan). Two-Stage Categorization: Computational Evidence by latent Semantic Analysis.
doi: 10.1057/9780230245259_5 In the proceeding of 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science
Littlemore, J. (2019). Metaphors in the Mind: Sources of Variation Society, Nashville. pp. 1587–1592.
in Embodied Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Utsumi, A., and Sakamoto, M. (2011). Indirect categorization as a process
doi: 10.1017/9781108241441 of predicative metaphor comprehension. Metaphor Symbol 26, 299–313.
Littlemore, J., and Low, G. (2006). Metaphoric competence, second language doi: 10.1080/10926488.2011.609120
learning, and communicative language ability. Appl. Linguist. 27, 268–294. Wang, Q. (2018). Neural mechanism and representation of English and Chinese
doi: 10.1093/applin/aml004 metaphors of Chinese EFL learners of different proficiency levels: An ERP
Liu, X. (2016). Metaphoric Competence and Processing Model Metaphor Under study. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 41, 67–83. Available online at:
Different Second Language Proficiecny: An ERP Study. Chongqing: South https://doi.org/10/gktbzw
West University. Wang, X., Zheng, W., Zhao, L., Liu, Y., Huang, B., and Zhang, J. X.
Lu, Z., and Sun, J. (2017). Presenting English polysemous phrasal verbs with (2019). The role of context in processing chinese three-character verb-object
two metaphor-based cognitive methods to Chinese EFL learners. System 69, metaphors: an event-related potential study. Psychol. Rep. 122, 1327–1348.
153–161. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2017.07.016 doi: 10.1177/0033294118779929
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 November 2021 | Volume 12 | Article 759175You can also read
